What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Diogenes, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. Diogenes

    Diogenes Guest

    Kind readers,

    The first cut of this was originally posted in
    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

    I was dismissed as being off topic.

    The reason for posting in 'stylesheets' was I felt
    this group would be the most sensitive to the differences
    between the browsers and what their respective audiences
    were using.

    So I repost again, this time with more specific information.
    I may or may not have a point here, depending on how you read
    this, and your general temperament.

    ================================================================

    IE is losing market share because it is an inferior product. A number
    of news articles (from google news) regarding the demise of the Netscape
    browser cited FireFox as having 16% of market share.

    I think that number is low. I provided a link to a site that more than
    doubles that figure.

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    I'm not saying these numbers are the final authority. It's
    just one sample.

    I manage 2 sites, one personal, the other commercial. Both are low
    traffic. Here are their numbers for Dec, produced by AWSTATS:

    Personal Comm
    FireFox (all versions) 57% 68.5%
    IE 39.2 24.4
    Others 2.9 6.9

    Granted, this is a very small sample, a selective audience, yada,
    yada, yada, but I trust these numbers.

    I was wondering what other are experiencing on their 100K
    visitors/month website.

    I imagine that the FF usage in Europe is MUCH higher that 16%.

    FWIW, another twist to all of this is that Microsoft is using the
    demise of Netscape an an argument in court that an extension of its
    'anti-trust oversight' should NOT be extended. The original reasons
    for this oversight have disappeared (NS is gone).

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/03/microsoft_scoffs_antitrust_extention_seekers/

    My recent experience in buying computers in the retail market in
    Calgary, Canada, is that Microsoft Vista is the ONLY windows OS
    on offer and IE is the only browser installed on these whiz bang
    machines that do everything with almost everything pre-installed
    (including stuff you don't want).

    You have to pull strings to get XP, for instance, and download FF
    yourself. Right? Please tell me I'm wrong.

    It's not the Adam Smith 'invisible hand' that is guiding the market
    here, it's the invisible hand of Bill Gates.

    One last link, by John Dovorak, says it better than I ever can.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2246368,00.asp


    Cheers
    -Dio
    Diogenes, Jan 9, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    On Jan 9, 3:00 am, Diogenes <> wrote:
    > I was dismissed as being off topic.


    My question again is why does it matter to the site what browser
    someone visits with? Isn't the mantra "be browser independent?"
    Travis Newbury, Jan 9, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    On Jan 9, 12:54 pm, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > On Jan 9, 3:00 am, Diogenes <> wrote:
    >
    > > I was dismissed as being off topic.

    >
    > My question again is why does it matter to the site what browser
    > someone visits with? Isn't the mantra "be browser independent?"


    Yeah, it is, but when doing lots of js and css... you just wanna
    redirect IE users to get a real browser and let on FF users see your
    page. You need to do too muck code-hacking to that all browsers would
    be happy.

    Ever tried the same page in IE, FF, Opera and Safari? I mean a "web
    2.0" page..with lots of js & css in it.

    Not trying to say that IE is the "bad one" in this area(even if i
    really think so) but when IE was 99% of all browsers visiting a web-
    site you just needed to program that page for IE, with all its hacks,
    and workarounds.... now you need to make the same thing for at least 2
    browsers. So right now (or until IE dissapears, or becomes a real
    browser) you need to make the same page for 2 different browsers, and
    when a change is required you have to make the same change twice...
    this means a lot of code to handle, and a lot of opportunities for
    bugs appearing (you can never know all the quirks of a browser,
    especially in the case of IE where IE5 behaves different than IE6, and
    IE6 different than IE7).
    _q_u_a_m_i_s's, Jan 9, 2008
    #3
  4. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    _q_u_a_m_i_s's said:

    > Yeah, it is, but when doing lots of js and css... you just wanna
    > redirect IE users to get a real browser and let on FF users see your
    > page. You need to do too muck code-hacking to that all browsers would
    > be happy.
    >


    There really isn't all that much 'code-hacking' required. Conscientious
    coding is much better than hacking and as far as Javascript goes, it is
    not difficult at all to find the common threads and use them
    appropriately so that code works in Safari, Opera, IE, and FireFox.

    > Ever tried the same page in IE, FF, Opera and Safari? I mean a "web
    > 2.0" page..with lots of js & css in it.
    >


    Yes, and I've written quite a few as well. With only minor CSS hacks
    most things work out just fine, and using object detection in Javascript
    means never having to say you're sorry.


    > Not trying to say that IE is the "bad one" in this area(even if i
    > really think so) but when IE was 99% of all browsers visiting a web-
    > site you just needed to program that page for IE, with all its hacks,
    > and workarounds.... now you need to make the same thing for at least 2
    > browsers. So right now (or until IE dissapears, or becomes a real
    > browser) you need to make the same page for 2 different browsers, and
    > when a change is required you have to make the same change twice...
    > this means a lot of code to handle, and a lot of opportunities for
    > bugs appearing (you can never know all the quirks of a browser,
    > especially in the case of IE where IE5 behaves different than IE6, and
    > IE6 different than IE7).


    No, no, IE is the bad one. :)

    All the best,
    ~A!


    --
    anthony at my pet programmer dot com
    Anthony Levensalor, Jan 9, 2008
    #4
  5. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    On Jan 9, 6:48 am, "_q_u_a_m_i_s's" <> wrote:
    > > My question again is why does it matter to the site what browser
    > > someone visits with? Isn't the mantra "be browser independent?"

    > Yeah, it is, but when doing lots of js and css... you just wanna
    > redirect IE users to get a real browser and let on FF users see your
    > page.


    If you redirect me and tell me to get a "real browser" I will likely
    leave your site and never return.

    Your visitor will think: "Since ever site I normally go to works just
    fine with my browser, I can only assume that it is YOUR site that is
    broken and NOT my browser. Bye bye now..."

    Just a thought.
    Travis Newbury, Jan 9, 2008
    #5
  6. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Travis Newbury said:
    > On Jan 9, 6:48 am, "_q_u_a_m_i_s's" <> wrote:
    >> Yeah, it is, but when doing lots of js and css... you just wanna
    >> redirect IE users to get a real browser and let on FF users see your
    >> page.

    [snip]
    > Your visitor will think: "Since ever site I normally go to works just
    > fine with my browser, I can only assume that it is YOUR site that is
    > broken and NOT my browser. Bye bye now..."
    >
    > Just a thought.
    >


    And I personally think the user who would say that would be 100%
    correct. It is really not that difficult to make sites that are
    cross-compatible these days.

    ~A!

    --
    anthony at my pet programmer dot com
    Anthony Levensalor, Jan 9, 2008
    #6
  7. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Travis Newbury <> writes:

    > On Jan 9, 3:00 am, Diogenes <> wrote:
    >> I was dismissed as being off topic.

    >
    > My question again is why does it matter to the site what browser
    > someone visits with? Isn't the mantra "be browser independent?"


    In theory yes, but in practice we're often forced to use strange hacks
    to work around a certain browser's broken behavior.

    The need for "body { font-size:100%; }" for instance, which IIRC is a
    workaround for a bug in IE. Here's a hack that's perfectly standards-
    compliant, but used only for the benefit of that one browser.

    Whether a browser has 70%+ or 5% market share is an important factor in
    one's planning. The fact that IE has such a large market share means
    that web developers should be aware of it and test their sites against
    it - preferably with all of the recent versions of it. And when new
    versions of popular browsers are released, we need to stay informed
    about whatever new bugs they add to the mix...

    Ideally, all this following and testing against this browser or that
    wouldn't be necessary, but browser bugs are an annoying reality. We
    can't just cover our ears and chant "standards" until the bugs go
    away, if we want to attract and keep and audience.

    Fortunately, virtualization like Parallels, VMWare, and VirtualPC has
    made it easy to test against a variety of IE/Windows versions without
    having to build a whole computer lab.

    If IE had a hypothetical market share of 5%, then I wouldn't consider
    it worth the time to worry about its bugs. In fact, on my CamelBones
    site I *don't* bother with testing against IE. CB is a tool for Mac
    developers, and all IE/Windows readers are going to quickly realize
    that these aren't the droids they're looking for. My logs show IE/Win
    numbers that are practically nil.

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherman Pendley, Jan 9, 2008
    #7
  8. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Anthony Levensalor <> writes:

    > There really isn't all that much 'code-hacking'
    > required. Conscientious coding is much better than hacking and as far
    > as Javascript goes, it is not difficult at all to find the common
    > threads and use them appropriately so that code works in Safari,
    > Opera, IE, and FireFox.


    And even then, you won't need to constantly write that kind of code.

    There are plenty of free libraries that encapsulate all that browser-
    checking and other standard code into a simple function call. And if
    you don't like those, it's not hard to write your own.

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherman Pendley, Jan 9, 2008
    #8
  9. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Sherman Pendley said:
    > Anthony Levensalor <> writes:
    >
    >> There really isn't all that much 'code-hacking'
    >> required. Conscientious coding is much better than hacking and as far
    >> as Javascript goes, it is not difficult at all to find the common
    >> threads and use them appropriately so that code works in Safari,
    >> Opera, IE, and FireFox.

    >
    > And even then, you won't need to constantly write that kind of code.
    >
    > There are plenty of free libraries that encapsulate all that browser-
    > checking and other standard code into a simple function call. And if
    > you don't like those, it's not hard to write your own.
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    Yeah, but browser checking sucks, and it's not a good move. There will
    be more browsers than the ones we have now, and the ones we have now
    will eventually go away. Why try to keep up?

    Not only that, but there are a great deal more browsers than there are
    scripts that include them all. Object/Function/Array/Collection
    detection on an as-needed basis works the best, and you don't have to
    have 80kb of Javascript code, 79kb of which you'lll never use, to do it.
    It's a beautiful thing. :)

    ~A!

    --
    anthony at my pet programmer dot com
    Anthony Levensalor, Jan 9, 2008
    #9
  10. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Sherman Pendley meinte:

    > There are plenty of free libraries that encapsulate all that browser-
    > checking and other standard code into a simple function call. And if
    > you don't like those, it's not hard to write your own.


    Libraries that do *browser*-checking are - at best - useless. Most of
    the time they'll be the source of errors.

    Gregor


    --
    http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
    http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
    http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
    Gregor Kofler, Jan 9, 2008
    #10
  11. Diogenes

    Randy Webb Guest

    Diogenes said the following on 1/9/2008 3:00 AM:
    > Kind readers,
    >
    > The first cut of this was originally posted in
    > comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
    >
    > I was dismissed as being off topic.


    Your anti-MS rants are just as off topic in comp.lang.javascript as they
    are in ciwas.

    You reply and tell me what it has to do with Javascript and I will be
    happy to debunk the many myths in your post.

    <snip>

    --
    Randy
    Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
    Randy Webb, Jan 9, 2008
    #11
  12. Diogenes

    Diogenes Guest

    Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Anthony Levensalor wrote:
    > Travis Newbury said:
    >> On Jan 9, 6:48 am, "_q_u_a_m_i_s's" <> wrote:
    >>> Yeah, it is, but when doing lots of js and css... you just wanna
    >>> redirect IE users to get a real browser and let on FF users see your
    >>> page.

    > [snip]
    >> Your visitor will think: "Since ever site I normally go to works just
    >> fine with my browser, I can only assume that it is YOUR site that is
    >> broken and NOT my browser. Bye bye now..."
    >>
    >> Just a thought.
    >>

    >
    > And I personally think the user who would say that would be 100%
    > correct. It is really not that difficult to make sites that are
    > cross-compatible these days.
    >
    > ~A!
    >


    Quamis's was just making a tongue-in-cheek remark. You guys really
    need to lighten up.
    Diogenes, Jan 10, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    *** Diogenes *** wrote a whole bunch of nifty stuff On 1/9/2008 9:02 PM:
    > Anthony Levensalor wrote:
    >> Travis Newbury said:
    >>> On Jan 9, 6:48 am, "_q_u_a_m_i_s's" <> wrote:
    >>>> Yeah, it is, but when doing lots of js and css... you just wanna
    >>>> redirect IE users to get a real browser and let on FF users see your
    >>>> page.

    >> [snip]
    >>> Your visitor will think: "Since ever site I normally go to works just
    >>> fine with my browser, I can only assume that it is YOUR site that is
    >>> broken and NOT my browser. Bye bye now..."
    >>>
    >>> Just a thought.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And I personally think the user who would say that would be 100%
    >> correct. It is really not that difficult to make sites that are
    >> cross-compatible these days.
    >>
    >> ~A!
    >>

    >
    > Quamis's was just making a tongue-in-cheek remark. You guys really
    > need to lighten up.


    Hah! We don't have to do anything, thank you very much. IE rants in
    comp.lang.javascript deserve whatever they get, thanks for coming by.

    ~A!

    --
    anthony at my pet programmer dot com
    Anthony Levensalor, Jan 10, 2008
    #13
  14. Diogenes

    Diogenes Guest

    Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    Anthony Levensalor wrote:
    >> Quamis's was just making a tongue-in-cheek remark. You guys really
    >> need to lighten up.

    >
    > Hah! We don't have to do anything, thank you very much. IE rants in
    > comp.lang.javascript deserve whatever they get, thanks for coming by.
    >
    > ~A!
    >


    As I was saying...
    Diogenes, Jan 10, 2008
    #14
  15. Diogenes

    Diogenes Guest

    Randy Webb wrote:
    > Your anti-MS rants are just as off topic in comp.lang.javascript as they
    > are in ciwas.
    >
    > You reply and tell me what it has to do with Javascript and I will be
    > happy to debunk the many myths in your post.
    >


    Javascript is client side programming that will work, for the most
    part, with all modern browsers without resorting to special
    code that targets a specific browser.

    Exceptions to this include embedded sound and video objects and
    code that employs programming colliquisms such as 'document.all'.

    Over to you RANDY WEBB ... yes, the many myths? I'll be satisfied
    if you offer 3.

    -Dio
    Diogenes, Jan 10, 2008
    #15
  16. Diogenes

    David Mark Guest

    Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    On Jan 9, 10:44 am, Sherman Pendley <> wrote:
    > Anthony Levensalor <> writes:
    > > There really isn't all that much 'code-hacking'
    > > required. Conscientious coding is much better than hacking and as far
    > > as Javascript goes, it is not difficult at all to find the common
    > > threads and use them appropriately so that code works in Safari,
    > > Opera, IE, and FireFox.

    >
    > And even then, you won't need to constantly write that kind of code.


    What kind of code?

    >
    > There are plenty of free libraries that encapsulate all that browser-


    Yes, there are plenty of clueless morons churning out free JavaScript
    libraries. They take the four browsers they have heard of, note the
    user agent string for each, run lots of tests on each, indexing the
    results by this string and then cobble together code that branches
    accordingly. This is, of course, a colossal waste of time. The
    reasons are myriad.

    1. The user agent string is meaningless. Browser developers forge it
    and users can change it. This dates back to the "browser wars" of
    last century. IE has always spoofed Mozilla, many mobile devices and
    fringe browsers spoof IE, etc. Nobody wants to be exluded from
    content on the basis of browser sniffing.

    2. Any inference based on the "detected" name/platform/version of a
    browser becomes suspect every time a new version is released. Imagine
    having to re-test everything each time an auto-update dialog pops up.
    If a revision invalidates one or more workarounds, the only recourse
    is to add new branches to the code. Then affected parts of the code
    (assuming they are isolated) must be re-tested with not only the new
    version, but each that preceded it.

    3. New agents come out every other day. Mobile devices, set top
    boxes, refrigerators, watches, etc. There is no end to it. It would
    be impossible to constantly add branches for each and it is
    impractical to ignore them.

    4. Since browser sniffing logic is clearly faulty, it stands to reason
    that graceful degradation based on such logic is impossible. The
    typical release of a JavaScript library "works" for a finite period of
    time for the default configuration of a handful of supported
    browsers. Results are undefined for all other cases, causing scripts
    to break in unpredictable ways that can easily render documents
    unusable.

    All of this adds up to major maintenance and support headaches that
    get worse as time goes by. Delegating these issues to the authors of
    JavaScript libraries would seem quite a leap of faith.

    The library authors are stuck in an endless cycle of working around
    their own incompetent design decisions. This is quite obvious from
    reading the associated blogs, mailing lists, support tickets, etc.

    None of this is news. People in this group (clj) who know better have
    been ripping these libraries to shreds for years. It is a rare
    occasion that the responsible parties speak up to justify their
    existence. The last such post that I remember was full of inept
    explanations, feeble excuses and arguments that have been invalid for
    over a decade.

    And server log sniffing is also a waste of time. Even if the relative
    popularity of specific browsers was important, statistics culled from
    server logs are inherently unreliable. In addition to the previously
    mentioned impossibility of user agent identification, a large segment
    of the population browses behind proxy servers.

    The solution is simple. See the FAQ entry on feature detection and
    write code once for all browsers. Obviously code must be tested with
    as many browsers as possible, but if it is free of faulty inferences,
    it won't have to be endlessly reworked and re-tested.
    David Mark, Jan 10, 2008
    #16
  17. Diogenes

    Randy Webb Guest

    Diogenes said the following on 1/9/2008 11:06 PM:
    > Randy Webb wrote:
    >> Your anti-MS rants are just as off topic in comp.lang.javascript as
    >> they are in ciwas.
    >>
    >> You reply and tell me what it has to do with Javascript and I will be
    >> happy to debunk the many myths in your post.
    >>

    >
    > Javascript is client side programming that will work, for the most
    > part, with all modern browsers without resorting to special
    > code that targets a specific browser.


    Nobody said any differently. And, nothing in your original post had
    anything to do with javascript. It reads as the typical anti-MS rant
    because some mythical voodoo statistics said so.

    > Exceptions to this include embedded sound and video objects and
    > code that employs programming colliquisms such as 'document.all'.


    I don't use either. And, I don't go back to sites that try to force
    music on me.

    > Over to you RANDY WEBB ... yes, the many myths? I'll be satisfied
    > if you offer 3.


    Myth #1: That webstats, any of them, are worth the paper it would take
    to print them. They are useless. Totally useless.

    Myth #2: That you can't buy a retail PC with any Windows on it besides
    Vista. We recently installed over 100 (109 to be exact) desktop units
    that had Windows XP installed on them.

    Myth #3: That anything that John Dovorak (whoever that may be) has to
    say about Microsoft has anything to do with Javascript.

    Nothing in your post had anything to do with Javascript. Perhaps you
    should try reposting and at least try to ask about some JS slant to it.

    As for market share, the only way you will *ever* get rid of IE is if
    you get rid of Windows. And with the rate that PC's are bought, that
    isn't happening any time soon.

    Curious though. Are there any of the anti-MS crowd that want to bitch
    and complain about the PC manufacturers that practically gave Bill Gates
    the monopoly he has? Bill Gates saw an opportunity and he took it. The
    PC manufacturers were beating at his door wanting a bulk discount. They
    gave him a monopoly in return for that discount. It was about the money.

    --
    Randy
    Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
    Randy Webb, Jan 10, 2008
    #17
  18. * Diogenes wrote, on %m/1240588 /%y at %:%m:
    > Randy Webb wrote:
    >> Your anti-MS rants are just as off topic in comp.lang.javascript as
    >> they are in ciwas.
    >>
    >> You reply and tell me what it has to do with Javascript and I will be
    >> happy to debunk the many myths in your post.
    >>

    >
    > Javascript is client side programming that will work, for the most
    > part, with all modern browsers without resorting to special
    > code that targets a specific browser.
    >
    > Exceptions to this include embedded sound and video objects and
    > code that employs programming colliquisms such as 'document.all'.
    >
    > Over to you RANDY WEBB ... yes, the many myths? I'll be satisfied
    > if you offer 3.
    >
    > -Dio


    Myth #1:
    That you have the ability to understand the basics of communication in
    the English language.

    Fact #1:
    You were asked what this topic had to do with Javascript. You responded
    by stating that Javascript runs in modern browsers. This still has
    nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is Browser Market
    Share, not browser detection, or anything associated with Javascript.

    Myth #2:
    > Javascript is client side programming


    Fact #2:
    Javascript runs on both the client and the server

    Myth #3:
    that will work, for the most
    > part, with all modern browsers without resorting to special
    > code that targets a specific browser.


    Fact #3:
    Your myth implies that javascript requires no sort of checking to make
    sure the features being used are supported in the currently running
    environment. This is untrue, because object/feature/function detection
    is a staple of modern Javascript coding practices, and as a technique is
    a more elegant and far less error prone method for targeting a specific
    browser.

    Consider any function trying to get the source element of an event:

    function eventHandler(e) {
    // in some browsers, e will be undefined, IE is one.
    // in Mozilla, e will be an event object
    if (window.event) {
    e = window.event;
    }

    var elm = e.srcElement; // IE
    var elm = e.target; // Mozilla
    }

    There are countless other examples.
    style.filter
    style.opacity

    Both work with the alpha opacity of an element. In IE, however, you
    cannot change the opacity of an element that does not have a width and
    height explicitly set.

    Myth #4:
    > Exceptions to this include embedded sound and video objects and



    Fact #4:
    Since your initial premise was incorrect, your exceptions to that
    premise are also incorrect by default.

    The following works in IE, FireFox, Opera, and Safari for Windows:

    <embed type="application/x-mplayer2"
    src="11%20My%20Friend%20Of%20Misery.mp3" autostart="false" loop="false">

    With no modification. It isn't even valid markup, and it has that kind
    of compatibility.

    Myth #5:
    > code that employs programming colliquisms such as 'document.all'. (as

    another exception)

    Fact #5:
    document.all _is_ code that targets specific browsers. That doesn't
    require a workaround or special code, it requires a basic education in
    DOM standards and script bindings.


    ~A!


    --
    anthony at my pet programmer dot com
    Anthony Levensalor, Jan 10, 2008
    #18
  19. Diogenes

    David Mark Guest

    Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    On Jan 9, 11:49 pm, Anthony Levensalor <>
    wrote:
    > * Diogenes wrote, on %m/1240588 /%y at %:%m:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Randy Webb wrote:
    > >> Your anti-MS rants are just as off topic in comp.lang.javascript as
    > >> they are in ciwas.

    >
    > >> You reply and tell me what it has to do with Javascript and I will be
    > >> happy to debunk the many myths in your post.

    >
    > > Javascript is client side programming that will work, for the most
    > > part, with all modern browsers without resorting to special
    > > code that targets a specific browser.

    >
    > > Exceptions to this include embedded sound and video objects and
    > > code that employs programming colliquisms such as 'document.all'.

    >
    > > Over to you RANDY WEBB ... yes, the many myths?  I'll be satisfied
    > > if you offer 3.

    >
    > > -Dio

    >
    > Myth #1:
    > That you have the ability to understand the basics of communication in
    > the English language.
    >
    > Fact #1:
    > You were asked what this topic had to do with Javascript. You responded
    > by stating that Javascript runs in modern browsers. This still has
    > nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is Browser Market
    > Share, not browser detection, or anything associated with Javascript.
    >
    > Myth #2:
    >  > Javascript is client side programming
    >
    > Fact #2:
    > Javascript runs on both the client and the server
    >
    > Myth #3:
    > that will work, for the most
    >  > part, with all modern browsers without resorting to special
    >  > code that targets a specific browser.
    >
    > Fact #3:
    > Your myth implies that javascript requires no sort of checking to make
    > sure the features being used are supported in the currently running
    > environment. This is untrue, because object/feature/function detection
    > is a staple of modern Javascript coding practices, and as a technique is
    > a more elegant and far less error prone method for targeting a specific
    > browser.
    >
    > Consider any function trying to get the source element of an event:
    >
    > function eventHandler(e) {
    >    // in some browsers, e will be undefined, IE is one.
    >    // in Mozilla, e will be an event object
    >    if (window.event) {
    >      e = window.event;
    >    }
    >
    >    var elm = e.srcElement; // IE
    >    var elm = e.target; // Mozilla
    >
    > }


    e = e || window.event;
    var elm = e.target || e.srcElement;

    >
    > There are countless other examples.
    > style.filter
    > style.opacity
    >
    > Both work with the alpha opacity of an element. In IE, however, you
    > cannot change the opacity of an element that does not have a width  and
    > height explicitly set.


    Specifically, IE will not set the opacity unless the element sets its
    proprietary "hasLayout" property. Here is one way to force it:

    if (el.currentStyle && !el.currentStyle.hasLayout) { el.style.zoom =
    1; }

    >
    > Myth #4:
    >  > Exceptions to this include embedded sound and video objects and
    >
    > Fact #4:
    > Since your initial premise was incorrect, your exceptions to that
    > premise are also incorrect by default.
    >
    > The following works in IE, FireFox, Opera, and Safari for Windows:
    >
    > <embed type="application/x-mplayer2"
    > src="11%20My%20Friend%20Of%20Misery.mp3" autostart="false" loop="false">
    >
    > With no modification. It isn't even valid markup, and it has that kind
    > of compatibility.


    I'll take your word for it, but standard nested objects can work just
    as well these days.
    David Mark, Jan 10, 2008
    #19
  20. Re: What are your users using? IE vs FF and everyone else

    * David Mark wrote
    [snip]
    >> function eventHandler(e) {
    >> // in some browsers, e will be undefined, IE is one.
    >> // in Mozilla, e will be an event object
    >> if (window.event) {
    >> e = window.event;
    >> }
    >>
    >> var elm = e.srcElement; // IE
    >> var elm = e.target; // Mozilla
    >>
    >> }

    >
    > e = e || window.event;
    > var elm = e.target || e.srcElement;
    >


    Aye, that was not meant to be running code. That is precisely how I do
    it in my apps. :)

    >> There are countless other examples.
    >> style.filter
    >> style.opacity
    >>
    >> Both work with the alpha opacity of an element. In IE, however, you
    >> cannot change the opacity of an element that does not have a width and
    >> height explicitly set.

    >
    > Specifically, IE will not set the opacity unless the element sets its
    > proprietary "hasLayout" property. Here is one way to force it:
    >
    > if (el.currentStyle && !el.currentStyle.hasLayout) { el.style.zoom =
    > 1; }
    >


    Good tip, I was not aware of that. Danke.

    [snip]
    >> The following works in IE, FireFox, Opera, and Safari for Windows:
    >>
    >> <embed type="application/x-mplayer2"
    >> src="11%20My%20Friend%20Of%20Misery.mp3" autostart="false" loop="false">
    >>
    >> With no modification. It isn't even valid markup, and it has that kind
    >> of compatibility.

    >
    > I'll take your word for it, but standard nested objects can work just
    > as well these days.


    Whole post took about three minutes to write up, I was kinda just
    showing him the door on this one. I did test the embed, and netscape 9
    was the only one that wanted to download a plugin and couldn't find it.

    The Object->Param->Embed construct that works even better and is much
    more useful was just too long to type for my purposes here. :)

    ~A!


    --
    anthony at my pet programmer dot com
    Anthony Levensalor, Jan 10, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kevin bailey

    is xmlspy way ahead of everyone else

    kevin bailey, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,743
    Aslam
    Jul 7, 2003
  2. Nathan Sokalski

    How is everyone else doing IE7 testing?

    Nathan Sokalski, Nov 15, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    630
    dotNuttah
    Dec 17, 2006
  3. Diogenes
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    319
    Diogenes
    Jan 9, 2008
  4. petersonrj
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    116
    petersonrj
    Sep 17, 2004
  5. Dominick Baier
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    185
    Patrick.O.Ige
    Oct 21, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page